Is Anti-Racist Extremism Taking Root Among Some LDS Church Members? Why We Should Not Insert A "Racism" Question Into The Temple Interview

Since the 1978 revelation extending Priesthood eligiblity to all spiritually-worthy males regardless of race, formally canonized as Official Declaration 2, LDS Church leaders have persistently warned against racial abuse. Most recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley explicitly stated that there is no place for racial abuse within the ranks of the LDS Church. Association with groups or organizations advocating or practicing racial abuse can even result in a member being called before a disciplinary council.

This is understandable and even commendable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now a global church. We even have a temple in the black African nation of Ghana. The Lord has made it quite clear that He no longer distinguishes between the descendants of Cain and the other descendants of Adam. If we profess ourselves to be of the Lord, we must follow that example.

Unfortunately, there are signs that some church members, particularly the younger set, are lurching towards the opposite extreme; namely, anti-racist extremism. While anti-racism sounds innocuous on the surface, hard-core anti-racists do not respect the traditional American presumption of innocence. Anti-racists consider all people, particularly white people, guilty of racism until they prove otherwise. They promote and impose intrusive, invasive, and abusive scrutinization techniques to witch-hunt any and all traces of racism. In one extreme, toddlers in the United Kingdom who display an aversion to spicy food have been witch-hunted for "racism".

Two current LDS blogs discuss racism among Latter-day Saints. On the By Common Consent blog, Kaimi asks "Should racism be a temple recommend question?" This is in reference to the annual interview of a member by the ward bishop necessary for renewing one's temple recommend. A bishop will ask a series of questions about a member's worthiness to determine if the member's recommend is to be renewed.

Based on the comments in response, most people think it ludicrous to include such a question. One respondent in comment #41 states that it is adequately covered in the current interview by the question, “Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” Indeed, as the comments accumulated, the expected name-calling began, with opposing factions sanctimoniously pronouncing each other to be "racist".

The other blog is Mormon Insights. The content of the post, entitled "Racism violates Christianity" is no problem. The title is the problem. By using the term "racism", the blogger is demonizing an entire philosophy, when he should more precisely be taking issue with the misuse of that philosophy. His post would be better entitled "Racial abuse violates Christianity", or "Racial prejudice violates Christianity".

Professional anti-racist lobbies like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have a vested financial interest in promoting anti-racism. Consequently, they are prone to invent non-existent racism and to exaggerate existent racism for the sake of organizational self-perpetuation and to keep the donation spigot cranked wide open. Let's single out one prominent target of these organizations' ire - Dr. David Duke, a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives who is considered the premier spokesman for the white nationalist community. After reading what the ADL says about Dr. Duke HERE, and the assessment provided by the SPLC HERE, one would understandably get the impression that Dr. Duke is "an evil anti-Semitic racist who's just champing at the bit to fire up the trains and ship the rest of the Jews to Happy Camp, with a black under one arm and a Latino under the other arm".

But before we just blindly accept what professional anti-racist lobbies have to say about Dr. Duke, why don't we read his own words and find out if it's true. On his website, Dr. Duke recently posted an example of what his Inaugural Address would be had he become President. Here are some pertinent excerpts:

Do not get me wrong. The media portray me as wishing harm to others beside European Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me make here for the whole world to hear, a clear declaration of my beliefs.

I believe that all peoples on the planet have the right to live, to create a society in harmony with their character, their traditions, their abilities and their spirit.

I believe that all peoples have the right to preserve their characteristics in the heritage of their unique genetic ancestry and in their respective traditions, cultures, values and faiths.

I believe that European peoples also have those same inalienable rights.

I will, as President, act to protect the rights of every heritage in America, including my own heritage.

{snip}

Should I be ashamed for wanting to preserve the overwhelmingly European composition of America? Of course not. Why should I be? The United States of America came into being overwhelmingly by the work, genius, values and sacrifices of European Americans.

It is the masters of the media that should be ashamed, very ashamed, for pushing programs and policies meant for the genocide of our people in our own land. I am here to say that your new President says firmly: “No more.”

Now this does not mean we should harm non-Europeans. Everyone should be treated decently and fairly. One does not, and should not, harm others to secure his own justice.

I will not allow massive violation of the civil rights of any people in America, and the fact is that Whites are today the victims of massive racial discrimination called affirmative action. I will as your President issue an executive order this afternoon outlawing and forbidding so-called affirmative action in any section of the Federal Government or in any privately or publicly owned company that does contracting or business with the Federal Government. You know even the term “affirmative action” shows the evil manipulation of the media. Affirmative action is an Orwellian newspeak word for discrimination that goes on against millions of better-qualified White Americans in hiring, promotions, college admittance, union admittance, scholarships, and contracting. From today on, this massive racial discrimination by this anti-White racist system ends.

Furthermore, I will restore the civil rights of all Americans to choose their associations. There will be no more forced integration of schools, neighborhoods, communities. The right to associate with whom one pleases means there should also be no forced association. Most Blacks and Whites choose freely to associate with their own. Tomorrow you can go in the Department of Labor cafeteria and see about 700 people eating lunch. You will find about half of the people are African Americans and half are European Americans. Overwhelmingly, African Americans choose to associate with their own. This is not evil, this right is real freedom. With these rights I see African Americans having more responsibility, rights and control in their own areas and their own schools as they should and the same rights must exist for European Americans in their own predominant areas.

It's prefectly clear that Dr. David Duke not only has expressed absolutely NO HATRED towards people of other races, but that he believes the rights of all Americans are equally valid. As a matter of fact, as evidenced by his opposition to affirmative action, it seems like he actually wants to level the playing field between the races. We have obviously been misled by professional anti-racist lobbies who have a vested financial interest in self-perpetuation, and it naturally begs the question as to how else they've misled us.

But you see, the anti-racists have taught us that a level playing field is, in and of itself, racist. They claim we have to "make up for past discrimination", even if we didn't personally discriminate. And then even if we didn't discriminate, they'll claim that we're all "latent racists" and have to be re-educated anyway. This is why they never really define "racism"; they want to spring the charge upon us randomly and unpredictably to keep us off balance and under control.

This is why anti-racism is just as dangerous as racism. It is based upon premises which are both spurious and potentially discriminatory against the white community. It illustrates why we need to keep politics out of the wardhouse. Our mission as Latter-day Saints is to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ - first, last, and foremost. Human gospels divide - the Gospel of Jesus Christ unites. We can politick all we want outside the wardhouse. But when we assemble ourselves to worship God, we leave the politics outside.

And that's the best reason of all why we don't want to insert a "racism" question in a Temple Worthiness Interview.